User talk:Norden1990

Files missing description details

Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as:

• File:BudinszkyLaszlo.jpg
• File:HenneyArpad.jpg
• File:JurcsekBela.jpeg

are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 09:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Chief Justice of Hungary

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

György Kézdy

Hello

Where in the reference does it state that he committed suicide? - Michael David (talk) 03:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. It is in the source that I gave. [1]. --Norden1990 (talk) 05:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. I, and many, many more of the editors and readers of this encyclopedia, cannot read the language in which this source is written. - Michael David (talk) 12:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is no English source, I checked. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I wasn't questioning the validity of your edit; I assumed, in good faith, that it was correct. I'll keep looking for a reference to his suicide in English. - Michael David (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. English translation of the article's title: Öngyilkos lett Kézdy György - "György Kézdy commits suicide". Another sentence for the fact of suicide: Szombat éjszaka azonban az egyik harmadik emeleti ablakon kivetette magát és meghalt. - "In Saturday night, however, he jumped out of the third-floor window [in the hospital] and therefore died." --Norden1990 (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this. To help those persons researching and collecting data on suicide, it would be a good indea to post this translation on the Article's Talk Page. - Michael David (talk) 12:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

MAIL CÍM HIÁNYA

Hello! Neked miért nincs a wikis adatlapodon beállítva e-mail, ahol kommunikálni lehetne veled? Köszi a választ! --Balkony (talk) 13:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Azóta sem történt változás, elvileg beállítottad, gyakorlatilag semmiféle -email gomb nem látszik a lapodon--Balkony (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Remélem, most már jó. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see my response

Hello, Norden1990. You have new messages at Nlu's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Norden1990. You have new messages at Nlu's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

3RR Warning, again

Your recent editing history shows that you were engaged in several edit wars. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution.

When an addition of content is contested, don't insist on inserting it.in lack of consensus, as you did here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pavel_Jozef_%C5%A0af%C3%A1rik&action=history --Omen1229 (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Picking socks? What are you doing?

Hello,

I see that you are a wikipedian for a long time and I imagine that you know how the community works. I am very confused by some of your latest edits, I am wondering did you simply made a mistake or you are picking which SOCK edits to keep and which to revert?

Please explain the logic in your last couple of edits, where you keep User:Stubes99 edits:

• [2] - Where you reverted a part of data inserted by User:Stubes99, his SOCK (User:Kissokos),
• [3] - again here, supporting SOCK addition.

While here you remove Iasi`s SOCK edits:

• [4] - You revert this even when correct data is presented while at Stubes you justify that with a comment "This edit corrected an error, I don't care about the user's identity" [5]. So if the data is correct by Stubes99 it remains while Iasi`s edits, correct or not are removed?
• [6] unverifiable addition.

You do understand that keeping any SOCK edits is against wikipedia rules [7]? You can`t just choose which to keep and which not. If you are reverting one SOCK`s edits, revert ALL of them. Adrian (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It is very interesting that Newnou (Iaaasi) was also banned but his edits were not reverted by anyone... I'm just against the double standard. Obviously I did not know who is Stubes99, I had never met with him before this conflict... I just saw a sockpuppet deleted another's sockpuppet edits, so I reverted the article to stable version.

• [8] - see my reasons in the page history. I checked the sources and reformulated the sentence, moreover, I corrected the referenced pages.
• [9] - so this error never would be fixed, because a sockpuppet once corrected?

--Norden1990 (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

[[10]] - Removed what appears to be a correct edit by Iassi`s SOCK, but edits made like this by Stubes99 you keep?

Iaaasi was not correct, because he renamed a category without consensus and there is also exist an appropriate way: speedy renaming --Norden1990 (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is asking why are you removing Iaaasi`s edits (I support that), but I am asking why are you removing Iaaasi`s edits while keeping Stubes99? Under excuse that one is "correct" and other not.

You are using double standards while choosing which edits to revert and which to keep. The category you added was faulty [11] and many others, there is no "Category:Burials at Gyulafehérvár Cathedral, Alba Iulia", if you check the correct name is in English, since this is EN wikipedia ([[12]]). As far as I know Hungarian, Gyulafehérvár is Hungarian name for Alba Iulia, so even translated this is a faulty category and YET you removed this.

Please avoid choosing which SOCK to keep and which to remove, if it is a SOCK use same criteria. Either remove them all or keep them all. Adrian (talk) 21:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Avout this [13] , it is still SOCK data, you just moved it a little. Adrian (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You did not answer my question: "[14] - so this error never would be fixed, because a sockpuppet once corrected?"

I did not choose among the socks' reliability, this choice was already happened when Stubes' edits were deleted and Iaasi's were not. And If you can see, the reverted paragraphs were checked and rewritten by myself. For the Gyulafehérvár case: yes, Iaaasi's method was incorrect, because the category of Burials at Gyulafehérvár Cathedral already had been existed. Newnou or Iaaasi should have been request to renaming this category at the relevant WP page. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

If that was the case, why did`t you simply remove Iaasi`s data and be done with it? Instead there is all this confusion and reverts. I for example have on my watchlist Stubes99 favorite articles and it is natural that I will notice his SOCKS before Iaaasi`s. Nobody is saying that you should not watch and revert Iaaasi`s SOCKS. But now, you choose to keep Stubes99 data and remove Iaaasi`s. That is double standards. Analyze this example], Iaaasi did a correct edit here according to WP:EN and you reverted him, on the other hand where Stubes99 was correct [15] you supported his edits and kept them in the article. In short, both SOCKS had constructive edits, and you deleted one and kept another. You see the double standard here?

It doesn`t matter if you rewrote the data by Stubes99, it is still data that Stubes99 contributed. You did`t came with anything new there. Adrian (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I reverted Iaaasi's edit, because no one contested his edits, interestingly. I just showed the double standards, according to arguments of Omen. Anway the sockuppet Newnou was the first who deleted Stubes' edits. So two opposing sockpuppets' edits, hitting each other, like -1 X -1 = +1?

Yes, and just because nobody contested them you decided to keep Stubes99 edits? It has no logic to me. It is not my, or your fault that one SOCK edits are removed and another not. But the solution certainly isn`t to pick which to keep and which not. As I said in my first comment, don`t pick them, simply remove all of them. If you pick them, we are "fighting" Stubes99 and Iaaasi`s "wars". Me, you and anyone who participates in this manner become in some way their SOCKS, because we are supporting one of them. Wikipedia policy states to remove all banned users contributions, so please keep that practice.Adrian (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

[16] This was also a sock edit. This is clearly a correction of an error, but, according to your logic, the wrong version is should be keep until doomsday, because a sockpuppet corrected this error once a time... --Norden1990 (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

So by this logic, this one too? Why did you choose to keep Stubes99 correction and remove Iaaasi`s correction? And what about this [17], this was pure data added by SOCK, not a correction. Adrian (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I revised my position in the first case (however whole Banat was part of Hungary before 1920, so both versions' appearance is reasonable), and I have said my point of view about the latter edit: Western publications, and I modified lot of things. If you have further problems, then report me, I am no longer interested in this miserable affair. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I don`t have any problems, I am just trying to explain what is happening when we choose SOCK edits. At the end, we end up "fighting" their "wars". SOCK data is SOCK data even if it is constructive. There is a rule about this, and it is best to respect it (simply remove all SOCK contributions). I will not revert you about the remaining User:Stubes99 data, but don`t be surprised if other users do so. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ban (title), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Avars (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement discretionary sanctions warning: Eastern Europe

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

This warning relates to the ongoing ANI thread, where I have explained the kind of misconduct you must desist from.  Sandstein  09:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)